Item type: citing an internet-based database

walentas
Hiya-

I am trying to cite a number of databases that exist on the net (or whole corporate sites) in a peer-reviewed medical journal, however none of the item types seem to be appropriate- although to be fair I've not scoured them all.

There's one for blog, really?

I was trying to conform to this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=citmed&part=A57255

I can do so manually, but figured if I could learn how to do it properly it would be easier in the long run.

Is this is the works or perhaps I'm simply overlooking something?

Cheers,
christopher
  • adamsmith
    you should be able to get pretty much that by using the website item type - I haven't checked every little detail, but that should do.
  • walentas
    Semi-pilot error.

    There is indeed a website item- I'd been looking under New item -> More and it doesn't show up there. Not wanting to waste time I tried New Item from Page and it's fine.

    I'd still like to learn how to do it properly- add fields and get the style to output properly, but from what I've read through the forums it sounds less than facile- or rather less easy for someone who doesn't breath xml.

    Thanks you- next time I'll spend that extra bit of time banging around before pestering anyone.

    Do people formally cite blogs? I guess I'm getting old...

    Cheers!
  • adamsmith
    Instead of modifying the style you're probably better of with fiddling with the data input than with the output - i.e. adjust the content of the fields rather than the style.
    This may prove a helpful tool:
    chrome://zotero/content/tools/csledit.xul

    Some of the item types in zotero seem a bit random - i'd say podcast more so than blogpost - but neither of them is actually treated individually by the style output. But for what it's worth, blogs are taken quite seriously in some disciplines, most notably in economics, where a significant part of the policy debate is now taking place on blogs.

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Instead of commenting here, you should start a new discussion. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.